Method of inducing tolerance to an allergen

ABSTRACT

The present invention relates generally to the field of allergies. More particularly, the present invention provides a method for treating an allergy in a subject by inducing tolerance to an allergen associated with the allergy. Medicinal kits useful in protocols to induce tolerance or reduce intolerance in a subject also form part of the present invention.

CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No.12/865,499, filed Dec. 20, 2010, which application is a 371 NationalStage of International Patent Application No. PCT/AU2009/000104, filedJan. 30, 2009, which application claims priority benefit under 35 U.S.C.119(a) to Australian Provisional Patent Application No. 2008900463,filed Feb. 1, 2008, each of which is incorporated herein by reference.

STATEMENT AS TO RIGHTS TO INVENTIONS MADE UNDER FEDERALLY SPONSOREDRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

NOT APPLICABLE

REFERENCE TO A “SEQUENCE LISTING,” A TABLE, OR A COMPUTER PROGRAMLISTING APPENDIX SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISK

NOT APPLICABLE

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to the field of allergies. Moreparticularly, the present invention provides a method for treating anallergy in a subject by inducing tolerance to an allergen associatedwith the allergy. Medicinal kits useful in protocols to induce toleranceor reduce intolerance in a subject also form part of the presentinvention.

Bibliographic details of the publications referred to by author in thisspecification are collected alphabetically at the end of thedescription.

Reference to any prior art in this specification is not, and should notbe taken as, an acknowledgment or any form of suggestion that this priorart forms part of the common general knowledge in any country.

Rates of allergic disease have risen exponentially since 1980. While theprevalence of asthma, eczema and rhinitis may be stabilizing, foodallergy and anaphylaxis continue to rise (Gupta et al, Thorax62(1):91-96, 2007; Robertson et al, Med J Aust 180(6):273-276, 2004). Inthe UK, hospital admissions for food allergy and anaphylaxis haveincreased 500% and 700% respectively from 1991 to 2005 (Gupta et al,supra 2007). Prevalence of childhood peanut allergy has doubled between1997 and 2002 (Sicherer et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 112(6):1203-1207,2003). Data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare showsimilar trends (Mullins, Med J Aust 186(12):618-621, 2007). Allergicdisorders are now the most common chronic diseases affecting children inWestern societies. It is estimated that 5%-8% of children have a foodallergy (Bock, Pediatrics 79(5):683-688, 1987; Young et al, Lancet343(8906):1127-1130, 1994), and 1.5% of children have peanut allergy(Grundy et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 110(5):784-789, 2002).

Foods are the commonest triggers of severe allergic reactions(anaphylaxis) [Kemp et al, Arch Intern Med 155(16):1749-1754, 1995].Peanut allergy is of particular concern as reactions to peanuts areusually severe, involving two or more organ systems in 41% of peanutallergic subjects, and involving the respiratory system (anaphylaxis) in42% of peanut allergic subjects (Sicherer et al, Pediatrics102(1):199-205, 1998). Reactions to peanuts caused 27% (Pumphrey, CurrOpin Allergy Cin Immunol 4(4):285-290, 2004) to 30% (Bock et al, JAllergy Clin Immunol 107(1):191-193, 2001) of deaths from food inducedanaphylaxis. The threshold dose for reaction to peanut is oftenlow—subjective and objective symptoms may be induced by as little as 100μg (<1/1000th of a peanut) and 2 mg of peanut protein (<1/100th of apeanut), respectively (Hourihane et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol100(5):596-600, 1997). In double blind placebo controlled peanutchallenges, 50% of peanut allergic subjects reacted to 3 mg of peanutprotein (1/100th of a peanut) [Wensing et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol110(6):915-920, 2002]. Furthermore, subjects with severe reactions topeanut tend to react to lower doses of peanut than those with mildsymptoms (Wensing et al, supra 2002). Therefore, most allergic reactionsto peanut are severe, reactions may occur to low doses of allergen, andpeanut induced reactions account for a large proportion of deaths fromfood allergy.

Most cases of peanut allergy first present in early childhood betweenthe ages of 14 and 24 months (Sicherer et al, supra 1998). Unlikeallergy to milk and egg which generally resolve by late childhood,peanut allergy usually persists. Only 18% (Hourihane et al, Bmj316(7140):1271-1275, 1998) to 21% (Skolnick et al, J Allergy ClinImmunol 107(2):367-374, 2001) of children outgrow their peanut allergy(spontaneous development of tolerance), and there are no reliablepredictors for resolution (Skolnick et al, supra 2001; Hourihane et al,supra 1998). Accidental ingestions of peanut in children with peanutallergy are common—50% within 1 year and 75% within 5 years (Bock andAtkins, J Allergy Clin Immunol 83(5):900-904, 1989). Most reactions fromaccidental ingestion are life threatening (Vander Leek et al, J Pediatr137(6):749-755, 2000). Only 25% of peanut allergic patients were able toachieve complete avoidance without reaction in a five year period (Bockand Atkins, supra 1989). Therefore, patients with peanut allergy remainat significant ongoing risk of severe reactions.

There has been no effective long term treatment for food allergy.Management involves avoidance of the food concerned, early recognitionof symptoms of an allergic reaction and initiation of appropriateemergency treatment of allergic reactions, particularly anaphylaxis.Adrenaline is the first line therapy for anaphylaxis and is available asa self injectable device, the EpiPen (Registered)/EpiPen Jr (Registered)in Australia (and other devices in USA). The EpiPen (Registered) orEpiPen Jr (Registered) must be replaced regularly (12-18 months) andrequires specific training in its use (Mehr et al, Paediatr AllergyImmunol 18(5):448-452, 2006). As the majority of reactions to peanut aresevere, most children with peanut allergy are prescribed an EpiPen(Registered) which must be carried with them at all times. The EpiPen(Registered) should be administered if accidental exposure results in asevere reaction involving the respiratory or cardiovascular systems(anaphylaxis). However, most patients who have been prescribed an EpiPen(Registered) fail to use it at the time of a severe allergic reaction.Only 71% of patients prescribed an EpiPen had their EpiPen with them,10% of these had expired, and only 32% were able to demonstrate itscorrect use (Sicherer et al, Pediatrics 105(2):359-362, 2000). Theburden of living with peanut allergy and its management issignificant—children with peanut allergy are reported by their parentsto have a poorer quality of life than children with rheumatologicalconditions (Primeau et al, Clin Exp Allergy 30(8):1135-1143, 2000).Therefore, for peanut allergy, the high risk of repeated severelife-threatening reactions and the limited reliability of EpiPen(Registered) being used for the treatment of acute reactions in thecommunity highlight the need for long term treatment options that canachieve immune modulation and tolerance.

The mechanisms leading to the development of food allergy remain poorlyunderstood. It is considered that food allergy is caused by a failure oforal tolerance. Oral tolerance can be induced by either a single highdose exposure to antigen or by repeated low dose exposures to antigen.High dose tolerance involves Fas-mediated apoptosis or anergy, while lowdose tolerance is mediated by regulatory T cells (Treg). Recent studiessuggest that anergy and induction of Treg may not be distinct mechanismsfor tolerance, and most studies now focus on the role of Treg (reviewedin [Strobel and Mowat, Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 6(3):207-213,2006]). Several Treg subsets have been identified including Th3 cells,Tr1 cells, and CD4+CD25+ Treg. Th3 cells produce TGFβ and variableamounts of IL-4 and IL-10 (Chen et al, Science 265(5176):1237-1240,1994). Tr1 cells secrete IL-10 (Groux et al, Nature 389(6652):737-742,1997). CD4+CD25+ Treg express the transcription factor forkhead box P3(FOXP3) and mediate their suppressive effects in part by cell surfacebound TGFβ and to a lesser extent IL-10 (Chung et al, J Leukoc Biol77(6):906-913, 2005). CD4+CD25+ Treg arise predominantly in the thymus,but may also develop in mesenteric lymph nodes, Peyer's patches andperipheral lymph nodes where they play a role in mucosal tolerance(Chung et al, supra 2005). Treg and the regulatory cytokines TGFβ andIL-10 have been shown to play important roles in oral toleranceinduction and in food allergy. In a mouse model of food allergy, micetolerized to β-lactoglobulin had higher numbers of antigen specific IgAsecreting cells in Peyer's patches and higher levels of fecal IgA, aswell as increased TGFβ and IL-10 production by Peyer's patch T cells ascompared to sensitized mice (Frossard et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol114(2):377-382, 2004).

Evidence of a role for Treg in tolerance induction and food allergy isalso observed in human studies. Children with food allergy have fewerTGFβ+ lymphocytes in the duodenal epithelium and lamina propria(Perez-Machado et al, Eur J Immunol 33(8):2307-2315, 2003), and showreduced TGFβ expression by milk specific duodenal lymphocytes (Beyer etal, J Allergy Clin Immunol 109(4):7070-713, 2002). Similar findings havebeen reported for patients with non-IgE mediated food allergies (foodprotein induced enterocolitis) [Chung et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol109(1):150-154, 2002]. In subjects with cow's milk allergy, resolutionof allergy was associated with increased numbers of CD4+CD25+ T cellsand reduced β-lactoglobulin induced proliferation compared to those withongoing allergy (Karlsson et al, J Exp Med 199(12):1679-1688, 2004). Invitro depletion of these CD4+CD25+ cells led to increasedβ-lactoglobulin induced proliferation suggesting that induction of oraltolerance was related to increased CD4+CD25+ cells Treg (Karlsson et al,supra 2004). Oral tolerance is also associated with increased IFNγ(Tureanu et al, J Clin Invest 111(7):1065-1072, 2003). Comparison ofpeanut specific immune responses in normal children, children withpeanut allergy, and peanut allergic children who had outgrown theirallergy showed Th2 skewed responses in peanut allergy and Th1 skewedresponses in oral tolerance (normal children and children who outgrewtheir peanut allergy) [Tureanu et al, supra 2003). These findingssuggest that food allergy is associated with loss of tolerance, reducedTreg and TGFβ, as well as reduced Th1 and increased Th2 responses.

Immunotherapy is used for the long term treatment of asthma, allergicrhinitis and insect venom anaphylaxis. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT)has been shown to reduce clinical symptoms and induce prolongedtolerance to allergens by modulation of immune responses (Norman, JAllergy Clin Immunol 113(6):1013-1023, 2004; Schmidt-Weber and Blaser,Springer Semin Immunopathol 25(3-4):377-390, 2004). Mechanistic studieshave shown that SCIT induces Treg and restores the disturbed balance ofTh1/Th2 effector cells in allergic patients. SCIT leads to reducedallergen specific IgE, elevated allergen specific IgG4, reduced Th2cytokine expression (IL-4, IL-5), and in most studies increased Th1cytokine expression (IFNγ) [Norman, supra 2004; Schmidt-Weber andBlaser, supra 2004]. These effects have been shown to be mediated byincreased numbers of CD4+CD25+ Treg, and induction of antigen specificCD4+CD25+ Treg with suppressive activity that is mediated by productionof IL-10 and/or TGFβ (Norman, supra 2004; Schmidt-Weber and Blaser,supra 2004). Other immunological effects of SCIT include increasedapoptosis of allergen specific Th2 cells, reduced tissue mast cellnumbers and reduced serum levels of TNFα and IL-1β (Norman, supra 2004).Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has also been shown to be effective inreducing clinical symptoms in respiratory allergy (asthma, rhinitis),however, immunological effects are less well characterized. Increasedspecific IgG4 and reduced specific IgE have been reported in some butnot all studies (Norman, supra 2004). Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has notbeen consistently effective when used for the treatment of respiratoryallergy and was largely abandoned for treatment of these conditions.

Various immunotherapy approaches have been attempted for the treatmentof food allergy. Treatment with a humanized anti-IgE antibody was shownto increase the threshold dose required to induce a reaction, however,this approach is expensive and only provides a short term benefitwithout modifying the natural history of disease (Leung et al, N Engl JMed 348(11):986-993, 2003). SCIT for peanut anaphylaxis was effective ininducing desensitization and increasing the threshold dose required toinduce a reaction (from 178 mg to 2805 mg, or from half a peanut to ninepeanuts) in subjects who were able to continue on maintenance therapy(Nelson et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 99(6 Pt1):744-751, 1997). However,serious systemic reactions were frequent (39% during maintenance) andthis approach has been abandoned. Peptide and mutated protein SCIT arebeing investigated to avoid systemic reactions, however, translation tothe clinic setting has been slow. SLIT has been used for the treatmentof food allergy. A double blind placebo controlled study of SLIT withhazelnut extract for four months in 41 adults with hazelnut allergyresulted in an increased threshold for reaction in the active treatmentgroup (from 2.29 g to 11.56 g) but not the placebo group (3.49 g to 4.14g). 50% of the treatment group as compared to 9% of the placebo groupwere able to tolerate 20 g of hazelnut during oral challenge performed8-12 weeks after immunotherapy had been discontinued, indicatinglong-lasting tolerance. As further evidence of immune tolerance, theactive treatment group demonstrated increased serum levels of IL-10 andhazelnut specific IgG. SLIT with fresh kiwi pulp also resulted inprolonged clinical tolerance to kiwi in a 29 year old female whodemonstrated protective effects from SLIT even after it had beendiscontinued for a period of four months (Kerzl et al, J Allergy ClinImmunol 119(2):507-508, 2007). These findings confirm the potential forSLIT as a treatment for food allergy in adults with evidence ofimmunomodulatory effects and prolonged clinical protection.

However, a major disadvantage of SLIT limiting its applicability inchildren is the need to hold the extract under the tongue for a periodof time (1-3 minutes) before swallowing or discharging (Enrique et al, JAllergy Clin Immunol 116(5):1073-1079, 2005; Kerzl et al, supra 2007).OIT offers the advantage of improved acceptability and compliance inchildren (Buchanan et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 119(1):199-205, 2007).

OIT has been used successfully for the treatment of food allergy. Casereports describe desensitization with OIT in milk allergy (Nucera et al,Dig Dis Sci 45(3):637-641, 2000; Bauer et al, Allergy 54(8):894-895,1999). A 12 year old girl was desensitized to cow's milk and remained onOIT indefinitely (Bauer et al, supra 1999). A six year old girl withcow's milk allergy was desensitized to milk following four months ofmilk OIT, and experienced dramatic immunological changes includingcomplete loss of SPT reaction to cow's milk, reduced serum levels ofmilk specific IgE, increased serum levels of milk specific IgG4 and IgA,as well as increased IFNγ and decreased IL-4 production inβ-lactoglobulin stimulated PBMC cultures (Nucera et al, supra 2000).This suggests that OIT may induce tolerance in some circumstances. Alarge case control study of OIT in 51 patients aged 3-55 years withvarious food allergies showed successful desensitization in 83% (45/54)of subjects who remained on daily OIT (Patriarca et al, AlimentPharmacol Ther 17(3):459-465, 2003). A reduction in peanut specific IgEand increase in peanut specific IgG4 was demonstrated suggesting thepossibility of tolerance induction but this was not examinedspecifically (Patriarca et al, supra 2003). A double blind RCT of milkOIT (200 ml maintenance dose) for six months in 21 children with milkallergy reported successful desensitization to milk in 71% (15/21)[tolerated 200 ml of milk on a daily basis], and partial desensitizationin 3/21 (14%) [tolerated 40-80 ml of milk] (Meglio et al, Allergy59(9):980-987, 2004). None of the children demonstrated a reduction inmilk specific IgE suggesting that tolerance was not achieved. In all ofthese previous studies, it is not certain whether OIT was effective ininducing tolerance since DBPC food challenges were not performed afterimmunotherapy was discontinued. Rolinck-Werninghaus reported twopatients in whom discontinuation of milk or egg OIT following 37 wk and41 wk of OIT respectively resulted in loss of desensitization,indicating that tolerance had not been achieved (Rolinck-Werninghaus etal, Allergy 60(10):1320-1322, 2005).

Studies and investigations aimed at developing protocols to manageallergic disorders have been focused on prevention rather than treatmentand have been based on animal models which poorly replicate the humanallergic disease condition (e.g: Schabussora and Widermann, Curr OpinAllergy Clin Immunol 8(6):557-564, 2008; Daniel et al, Allergy52(11):1237-1242, 2007; and Shida et al, Clin Exp Allergy 32:563-570,2002). Neither a prevention nor treatment protocol based on probioticsor prebiotics alone has achieved large scale success. Initial studies ofprobiotics or prebiotics for the prevention of eczema had providedpromising results (Osborne and Sinn, Probiotics in infants forprevention of allergic disease and food hypersensitivity (Review),Cochrane Database Syst Rev Art No. CD006475, 2007; Osborne and Sinn,Probiotics in infants for prevention of allergic disease and foodhypersensitivity (Review), Cochrane Database Syst Rev Art No. CD006474,2007). However, probiotics for the treatment of eczema has not provensuccessful as have the use of probiotics or prebiotics alone for theprevention or treatment of food allergy (Boyle et al, Syst Rev, Oct. 8,2008 Issue 4, CD006135).

New strategies to treat allergies which enhance tolerance induction arerequired.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention contemplates the use of allergen immunotherapy andbiotic agents to induce tolerance in subjects, such as humans andnon-human animals, to the allergen. “Allergen immunotherapy” includesthe administration of the allergen or an antigen component or modifiedform thereof by any means such as by oral, subcutaneous, sublingual,inhalation, intravenous, rectal or intraperitoneal means.

The biotic agent is generally a probiotic agent comprising a eukaryoticor prokaryotic organism such as a species of Lactobacillus,Bifidobacterium, Escherichia, Bacillus, Saccharomyces and/orStreptococcus or a prebiotic agent which facilitates growth andmaintenance of microflora in a subject being treated. In one embodiment,the probiotic agent is Lactobacillus rhamnosus. In another embodiment,the prebiotic agent is an oligosaccharide or soluble or insoluble fibre.

The allergen immunotherapy and biotic agent(s) may be sequentiallyadministered or given simultaneously. Reference to “administration”includes sequential or simultaneous administration of the allergen andprobiotic and/or prebiotic.

The allergen includes inter alia any food, drug, environmental,biological and chemical allergens. Food allergies such as to milk, eggs,legumes (e.g. peanuts), tree nuts, fish, shellfish, soy and wheat andbread are particularly contemplated herein.

Hence, treatment protocols to induce allergen tolerance or reduceintolerance in a subject in need thereof forms part of the presentinvention. The term “induce tolerance” includes reducing sensitivity toan allergen and reducing sensitivity to an allergy. In particular, thepresent invention is directed to reducing intolerance to an allergen bythe sequential or simultaneously administration of an allergen and abiotic to a subject in need of treatment. The “biotic” may be aprobiotic or a prebiotic or both.

Accordingly, one aspect of the present invention contemplates a methodfor inducing tolerance in a subject to an allergen, the methodcomprising administering to the subject an amount of allergen orantigenic fragment or component or analog of the allergen and a bioticagent effective to induce tolerance in the subject to the allergen.

The present invention further provides a method for reducing a subject'ssensitivity to an allergy, the method comprising administering to thesubject a biotic agent in conjunction with an allergen associated withthe allergy or an antigenic fragment or component or analog of theallergen for a time and under conditions sufficient for a level oftolerance to be induced in the subject.

The present invention is particularly directed to a method for treatingallergen intolerance in a subject, the method comprising administeringsequentially or simultaneously to the subject, a biotic and the allergenor an antigenic component or fragment or analog thereof in an amounteffective to induce tolerance to the allergen.

The present invention further directed to a method for inducingtolerance to an allergy in a subject in need thereof, the methodcomprising administering sequentially or simultaneously to the subject,a biotic and an allergen associated with the allergy or an antigeniccomponent or fragment or analog thereof in an amount effective to inducetolerance to the allergy.

Whilst not intending to limit the present invention to any one theory ormode of action, the combined effect of the biotic agent with allergenimmunotherapy is proposed to increase Th1 responses compared to Th2responses.

By ‘subject” is meant a human or non-human animal such as a companionanimal, livestock animal or captured wild animal. The subject isgenerally in need of treatment.

Formulations comprising a biotic agent as well an allergen or anantigenic fragment or component or analog thereof and one or morepharmaceutically acceptable excipients, carriers and/or diluents arealso provided.

The present invention also provides a medicinal kit comprising incompartmental form a first compartment or series of compartmentscomprising biotic agents and a second compartment or series ofcompartments comprising an allergen or source of allergen or antigenicfragments, components or analogs thereof with instructions for use.

The instructions for use include a medicinal protocol to use the bioticagents in conjunction with an allergen or source of allergen to inducetolerance or reduced sensitivity to an allergen.

As indicated above, the term “biotic” is used to encompass a probioticand a prebiotic. Both a probiotic and a prebiotic may also beadministered in a sequential or simultaneous manner.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

NOT APPLICABLE

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Throughout this specification, unless the context requires otherwise,the word “comprise”, or variations such as “comprises” or “comprising”,is understood to imply the inclusion of a stated element or integer orgroup of elements or integers but not the exclusion of any other elementor integer or group of elements or integers.

As used in the subject specification, the singular forms “a”, “an” and“the” include plural aspects unless the context clearly dictatesotherwise. Thus, for example, reference to “a biotic agent” includes asingle biotic agent, as well as two or more biotic agents (whichincludes two or more probiotics or prebiotics or a probiotic and aprebiotic); reference to “an allergen” includes a single allergen, aswell as two or more allergens; reference to “the invention” includessingle and multiple aspects of an invention; and so forth.

The present invention provides a medicinal protocol for treating asubject with an allergy by generating tolerance in the subject to anallergen. The protocol comprises providing the subject with a bioticagent and the allergen or a modified form thereof to which tolerance isdesired.

“Inducing tolerance” includes reducing sensitivity to an allergen or anallergen associated with an allergy. Hence, it encompasses reducingsensitivity to an allergy as well as reducing intolerance to anallergen—induced allergy.

Hence, the present invention provides a method for treating allergenintolerance in a subject, the method comprising administeringsequentially or simultaneously to the subject, a biotic and the allergenor an antigenic component or fragment or analog thereof in an amounteffective to induce tolerance to the allergen.

The allergen is provided to initiate and/or boost and/or maintain animmune response. Reference to an “allergen” includes any substance whichis capable of stimulating a typical hypersensitivity reaction in atopicsubjects. Allergens contemplated herein include any substance in food,drugs, perfume, plants, the environment or biological systems (e.g.prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells or viruses), as well as chemicalallergens. Types of allergens include animal products (e.g. cats, furand dander, cockroach calyx, dust mite excretion); drugs (e.g.penicillin, sulfonamides, salicylates (also found naturally in numerousfruits), local anaesthetics); foods (e.g. celery, celeriac, corn ormaize, eggs (typically albumen, the white), fruit, pumpkin, legumes(e.g. beans, peas, peanuts, soybeans), milk, seafood, sesame, soy, treenuts (e.g. pecans almonds), wheat, insect stings (e.g. bee sting venom,wasp sting venom, mosquito stings); mold spores, latex, metal; and plantpollens (e.g. grass—ryegrass, timothy-grass, weeds—ragweed, plantago,nettle, Artemisia, vulgaris, chenopodium album, sorrel, trees—birchalder, hazel, hornbeam, aesculus, willow, poplar, platanus, tilia,olea).

The present invention is particularly directed to food allergens such asfound in milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, soy and wheat.

In one embodiment, the present invention is directed to inducingtolerance to legume allergens and in particular peanut allergens.

Reference to the “allergen” includes the allergen in a purified orsubstantially purified or isolated form or when incorporated as part ofa substance such as food, a biological system, or chemical composition.Furthermore, the allergen to be administered may also be a modified formincluding an antigenic derivative or component or homologue or chemicalanalog. An “allergen” encompasses a mixture of allergens as well asgenetically modified or chemically modified allergens.

The present invention is directed to inducing tolerance or reducingsensitivity to an allergen or an allergy associated with the allergen aswell as reducing intolerance to an allergen-induced allergy.

The term “biotic” encompasses both a probiotic and a prebiotic. Aprobiotic is generally a live eukaryotic or a prokaryotic organism whichhas a beneficial property when given to a subject. In one aspect, theprobiotic complements the existing microflora in the subject. Hence, theprobiotic agent is a live microorganism which can confer a healthbenefit to a host subject. The probiotic agent may be a culture ofmicroorganisms or provided in a dietary supplement or may be freezedried and reconstituted prior to use. A prebiotic is an agent whichfacilitates or confers growth, maintenance and/or beneficial propertiesof or on the subject's microflora. A prebiotic includes anoligosaccharide and soluble or insoluble fibre material. A probiotic anda prebiotic may also be sequentially or simultaneously administered.

Examples of probiotic agents include species of Lactobacillus,Escherichia, Bacillus, Bifidobacterium, Saccharomyces and Streptococcus.

Particularly useful probiotic agents are from the genus Lactobacillussuch as Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM, Lactobacillus casei,Lactobacillus casei Shirota, Lactobacillus casei immunitass,Lactobacillus johnsonii, Lactococcus lactis, Lactobacillus plantarum,Lactobacillus reuteri, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus salivariusand Lactobacillus helvetirus.

Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) is considered herein to be aparticularly useful probiotic agent.

The microorganisms may be naturally occurring, attenuated or geneticallymodified to introduce new or to alter existing traits. In oneembodiment, the probiotic has been genetically modified to introduce anallergen gene or part or fragment or portion thereof which is expressedto produce recombinant microorganisms which release or expose thesubject's immune system to the allergen or an antigenic fragmentthereof. Hence, the probiotic and allergen may be given to the subjectas a single entity. As indicated above, a probiotic and a prebiotic mayalso be administered, together with the allergen or the allergen may beproduced by the probiotic.

Hence, the present invention provides a method for inducing tolerance ina subject to an allergen, the method comprising administering to thesubject an amount of allergen or antigenic fragment, compound or analogthereof and a biotic agent effective to induce tolerance in the subjectto the allergen.

In another embodiment, the present invention contemplates a method forinducing tolerance in a subject to an allergen, the method comprisingadministering to the subject an amount of probiotic modified to producean allergen or fragment or homolog thereof in an amount effective toinduce tolerance in the subject to the allergen.

In one particular embodiment, the allergen is a legume such as a peanut.

Hence, another aspect of the present invention contemplates a method forinducing tolerance in a subject to a legume allergen, the methodcomprising administering to the subject an amount of the legume allergenor an antigenic fragment, component or analog thereof and a biotic agenteffective to induce tolerance in the subject to the legume allergen.

One or more allergens may be administered generally at an amount whichdoes not cause distress to the subject such as in the form ofanaphylaxis. As indicated above, the legume allergen may also beproduced by a probiotic form of the biotic.

In a particular embodiment, probiotic is a species of Lactobacillus.

Another aspect of the present invention contemplates, therefore, amethod for inducing tolerance in a subject to a legume allergen, themethod comprising administering to the subject an amount of the legumeallergen or an antigenic fragment, component or analog thereof and abiotic agent is a probiotic agent selected from the list consisting ofL. acidophilus NCFM, L. casei, L. casei Shirota, L. casei immunitass, L.johnsonii, L. lactis, L. plantarum, L. reuteri, L. rhamnosus, L.salivarius and L. helvetirus effective to induce tolerance in thesubject to the allergen.

Yet another aspect of the present invention contemplates, therefore, amethod for inducing tolerance in a subject to a legume allergen, themethod comprising administering to the subject an amount of the legumeallergen or an antigenic fragment, component or analog thereof and abiotic agent is a prebiotic agent selected from the list consisting ofan oligosaccharide and a fibre effective to induce tolerance in thesubject to the allergen.

In a particular embodiment, the probiotic is L. rhamnosus or a modifiedform thereof. In another particular embodiment, the prebiotic is anoligosaccharide or a soluble or insoluble fibre.

Another aspect of the present invention contemplates a method forinducing tolerance in a subject to a peanut allergen, the methodcomprising administering to the subject an amount of the peanut allergenor an antigenic fragment, component or analog thereof and a biotic agenteffective to induce tolerance in the subject to the peanut allergen.

The present invention further contemplates, a method for inducingtolerance in a subject to a peanut allergen, the method comprisingadministering to the subject an amount of the peanut allergen or anantigenic fragment, component or analog thereof and a biotic agentselected from the list consisting of L. acidophilus NCFM, L. casei, L.casei Shirota, L. casei immunitass, L. johnsonii, L. lactis, L.plantarum, L. reuteri, L. rhamnosus, L. salivarius and L. helvetiruseffective to induce tolerance in the subject to the allergen.

Yet another aspect of the present invention provides a method forinducing tolerance in a subject to a peanut allergen, the methodcomprising administering to the subject an amount of the peanut allergenor an antigenic fragment, component or analog thereof and a prebioticagent selected from the list consisting of an oligosaccharide and afibre effective to induce tolerance in the subject to the allergen.

As indicated above, the fibre may be soluble or insoluble.

A method is also provided for reducing a subject's sensitivity to anallergy, the method comprising administering to the subject a bioticagent in conjunction with an allergen associated with the allergy or anantigenic fragment or component or analog of the allergen for a time andunder conditions sufficient for a level of tolerance to be induced inthe subject.

The “administering” includes sequential and simultaneous administrationof a probiotic and/‘or prebiotic and allergen.

Whilst not intending to limit the present invention to any one theory ormode of action, the combined effect of the biotic agent with allergenimmunotherapy is proposed to increase Th1 responses compared to Th2responses.

The present invention also provides a medicinal kit comprising incompartmental form a first compartment or series of compartmentscomprising biotic agents and a second compartment or series ofcompartments comprising an allergen or source of allergens or antigenicfragments, components or analogs thereof with instructions for use.

The instructions for use include a medicinal protocol to use the bioticagents in conjunction with an allergen or source of allergen to inducetolerance or reduced sensitivity to an allergen.

An “effective amount” or “therapeutically effective amount” means anamount necessary at least partially attain the desired immunologicaleffect of tolerance or to delay the onset or inhibit progression or haltaltogether, the onset of progression of an allergic response to anallergen in the subject in need of treatment. It is expected that theamount will fall in a relatively broad range that can be determinedthrough routine trials. The “effective amount” relates to the allergenand biotic, individually or combined. Conveniently, administration of atleast the allergen includes a “rush” amount followed by a “maintenance”amount. Examples of effective amounts range from 0.05 mg to 2000 mg perday, week or month. For peanut allergens, 0.1 mg to 300 mg per day iseffective.

The present invention in a particular aspect is directed to treatment ofa subject in need thereof rather than prophylaxis. That said, in anotheraspect, a prophylactic component is contemplated.

As used herein, the terms “treating” or “treatment” encompass theadministration of an agent which induces tolerance to an allergen.

The present invention is further directed to a method for inducing alevel of tolerance to an allergy in a subject, the method comprisingproviding to the subject effective amounts of a biotic and an allergenassociated with the allergy.

As indicated above, a single allergen may be provided or multipleallergens are provided.

The “level” of tolerance includes complete tolerance or an increasedthreshold in the amount of allergen to which a subject may be exposedprior to inducing an adverse allergic reaction.

The term “subject” as used herein refers to an animal, particularly amammal and more particularly a primate including a lower primate andeven more particularly, a human who can benefit from the methods of thepresent invention. Generally, the subject is in need of treatment as thepresent invention is particularly directed to treatment of anallergen-induced allergy. Genetic testing of subjects or embryos inutero may also identify subjects at risk of developing an allergy. Asubject regardless of whether a human or non-human animal or embryo, maybe referred to as an individual, subject, animal, patient, host orrecipient. The present invention, therefore, has both human andveterinary applications. For convenience, an “animal” specificallyincludes livestock animals such as cattle, horses, sheep, pigs,camelids, goats and donkeys. With respect to horses, these includehorses used in the racing industry as well as those used recreationallyor in the livestock industry. The non-human animal may also include acompanion animal such as a dog or cat or captured wild animal.

The present invention extends to any subject having an allergy orpredisposed to an allergic reaction. Hence, the subject may have afamily history, genetic trait or predisposition to the development of anallergy and accordingly may be administered doses of the probiotic andallergen to induce some level of tolerance to the allergen.

The biotic and allergen are given in conjunction with each other.Insofar as the biotic is a probiotic, the allergen or a geneticallymodified form or fragment thereof, may be produced by the microorganism.

By “in conjunction” is meant simultaneous administration in the sameformulation or in two different formulations via the same or differentroutes or sequential administration by the same or different routes. Theterm “in conjunction” also includes the use of two or more allergens inthe same therapeutic protocol. By “sequential” administration is meant atime difference of from seconds, minutes, hours or days between theadministration of the two types of molecules. The biotic and allergenmay be administered in any order. The probiotic form of the biotic mayalso produce the allergen. The biotic (i.e. probiotic and/or prebiotic)may be sequentially or simultaneously administered with the allergen.

As used herein “administering” or “administration” or “providing” anagent to a subject includes delivery via any route such as oral,subcutaneous, sub lingual, nasal, intravenous, anal or intra-peritonealroutes. The biotic may be given over a period of time prior to theallergen vice versa. Alternatively, both agents may be given atapproximately the same time.

Standard formulations may be employed for each or either of the bioticand allergen. As indicated above, the biotic may be in freeze dried formwhich is then reconstituted prior to use or the biotic may be given as adietary supplement. The freeze dried formulation may also comprise theallergen in a similar form. The biotic may also be given with a sourceof allergen such as milk, eggs, bread, soy and the like.

The present invention further provides diagnostic assays to monitorimmune mechanisms underlying tolerance. Examples of immune mechanismsinclude monitoring IgE, IgG4 and IgA levels as well as regulatory T-celllevels (Tregs).

The present invention is further described by the following non-limitingExamples.

EXAMPLE 1 Effects of Probiotic and Allergen Subject Recruitment,Treatment and Sample Collection

Eleven healthy non-atopic adults were treated with 1.8×10¹⁰ CFU LGG(Dicoflor, Dicofarm SpA, Rome) daily for 7 days. ten ml venous blood washarvested prior to treatment and at day 7. Blood samples were collectedin polypropylene tubes containing heparinized RPMI tissue-culture medium(Invitrogen, Carlsbad, Calif.).

Preparation of Blood Samples and Cell Culture

Mononuclear cells were separated by density centrifugation andcryopreserved for future batched analyses (Dunstan et al, J Allergy ClinImmunol 112:1178-1184, 2003). Two million cells/ml were incubated withor without antigen in AIM-V serum free medium (Invitrogen) for 48 h, orin RPMI with 10% v/v autologous plasma for 6 days in proliferationassays. Heat killed LGG (HKL) was prepared by incubating LGG at 75° C.for 45 minutes and was used at 5:1 HKL to mononuclear cell ratio. OVA(Sigma, St Louis, Mo.) was used at 100 μg/ml. IFNγ-1b (BoehringerIngelheim, Germany) and LPS (Sigma) were both used at 10 ng/ml. All cellculture reagents were tested for endotoxin contamination (Cape CodAssociates, E. Falmouth, Mass.). OVA required endotoxin removal overpolymyxin B columns prior to use (Pierce, Rockford, Ill.).

Flow Cytometry

Cell pellets were stained with fluorochrome-conjugated monoclonalantibodies in 50 μl staining volumes. Lineage cocktail-FITC (anti-CD3,14, 16, 19, 20, 56), HLA-DR-Peridinin chlorogphyll protein (PerCP),CD123-PE and CD11c-Allophycocyanin (APC) were used to identify DCphenotypes as CD11c^(hi)CD123w^(lo) myeloid DC (mDC),CD123^(hi)CD11c^(lo) plasmacytoid DC (pDC) and CD11c^(lo)CD123w^(lo)immature DC (iDC), CD3-APC, CD4-PerCP, CD25-PE-Cy7 (BD Bioscience, SanJose, Calif.), CD25-FITC and FoxP3-PE (E-Bioscience, San Diego, Calif.)were used to identify CD25^(hi)FoxP3^(hi) T-cell populations. CFSE wasused as a cell tracking dye, and aminostiblbamidine methanesulfonate asa viability dye (Molecular Probes, Eugene, Oreg.). CBMC or PBMC wereincubated with fluorochrome-labeled antibodies or isotype controls for30 minutes, and for intracellular staining cells were subsequentlypermeabilized, fixed and stained with FoxP3-PE antibody or isotypecontrol (E-Bioscience). Data were acquired on a 4-color LSR 1II (BDBioscience) and analyzed with FACSDiva v4.1 software using well definedgating strategies.

ELISA

Concentrations of IL-10, IFN-γ, IL-13, IL-12p40 and TNF-α weredetermined n CBMC culture supernatants harvested at 48 h by multiplexcytokine bead assay using a Luminex 100 analyzer (Luminex Corporation,Austin, Tex.). Anti-cytokine beads and matched anti-cytokinebiotinylated reporters were used according to the manufacturer'sinstructions (Millipore, Billerica, Mass.). Data were analyzed withLuminex IS 2.3 Software using a five-parameter regression formula tocalculate sample concentrations from standard curves. concentrations ofTGF-β1 were evaluated using a commercial human TGF-β1 ELISA kitaccording to the manufacturer's protocol (BD Biosciences). Supernatantswere analyzed undiluted in duplicate with recombinant cytokine as apositive and culture medium as a negative control. TGF-β1 concentrationswere determined based on a standard curve generated using the KCjuniorv1.40.3 program (Bio-Tek Instruments, Winooski, Vt.) with afour-parameter equation. ELISA data were analyzed both as dichotomousdata-detected versus not detected; and as continuous data-mean level ineach group.

Real Time PCR

RNA was extracted using the RNAeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany)and reverse transcribed to cDNA using the Superscript First StrandSynthesis System and oligo(dT) primers (Invitrogen). All reactionsincluded a ‘RT minus’ control with no reverse transcriptase to controlfor the possibility of contaminating DNA. FoxP3 and IL-4 mRNA werequantified by real time PCR using FAM-labeled Taqman Gene ExpressionAssays on an ABI Prism 7300HT system (Applied Biosystems, Foster City,Calif.). Eukaryotic translation elongation factor 1 alpha (EEF1A1) whichis stably expressed in human mononuclear cell cultures was used as areference gene (Hamalaninen et al, Anal Biochem 299:63-70, 2001). Themean level of gene expression in cDNA samples was expressed as a ratioto mean EEF1A1 expression.

Statistics

The clinical trial was designed with a sample size of 250 in order tohave 90% power to detect a 40% difference in eczema risk betweenprobiotic and placebo groups. Secondary outcomes included immuneoutcomes reported herein. All available CBMC samples were evaluated andprimary analyses were by intention to treat. Data were assessed usinghistograms and skewed data were log₀ transformed. Parametric paired datawere analyzed using the paired t-test, and non-parametric paired datausing Wilcoxon signed rank test and Sign test. Parametric unpaired datawere analyzed using the independent t-test, and non-parametric unpaireddata using Mann Whitney U test. Continuous data are presented asarithmetic means±1 SEM, or medians with inter-quartile ranges.Categorical data were analyzed using X² test or Fisher's exact test. Pvalue <0.05 was considered statistically significant, with due cautionin interpreting the results of multiple comparisons. Where thesignificance of findings was unclear a sensitivity analysis wasundertaken by excluding participants in whom: (1) treatment compliancedata (returned capsule counts) were not available (n=9); (ii) capsulecounts suggested compliance levels <50% (n=2); or (iii) no treatmentcapsules were taken due to premature delivery between randomization and36 weeks gestation (n=1). analyses were performed using SPSS v 16.0 forWindows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill.).

Effects of LGG Treatment on BPMC Proliferation

The effects of orally administered LGG were evaluated in healthy adults.PBMC were harvested from 11 adults prior to and upon completion of 7days LGG treatment. Treatment was associated with a 30% reduction (95%CI 11 to 50%; P=0.03) in mean CD4⁺ T-cell proliferative response to heatkilled LGG (HKL) compared with proliferative responses from the samesubjects before LGG treatment. In contrast, there was no changed in CD4⁺T-cell proliferation to OVA (P=0.2) or medium alone (P=0.06) after LGGtreatment.

Effects of LGG Treatment on DC Phenotype

DC phenotype was investigated in cultured PBMC harvested from adultsbefore and after LGG treatment. Plasmacytoid DC (pDC) increased from3.20% to 5.29% of total DDC (P=0.02) after LGG treatment, in PBMCcultured for 48 h with HKL. A trend towards increased ratio of pDC tomyeloid (mDC) was also seen after LGG treatment in PBMC cultured withHKL (mean ratio 0.36 pre-treatment, 0.58 post-treatment; P=0.07). LGGtreatment was not associated with any significant change in DC phenotypein PBMC cultured with OVA or medium alone.

The data show that oral administration of LGG to healthy adults leads tosystemically detectable changes in T-cell proliferative responses and DCphenotype. Both the decrease in CD4⁺ T-cell proliferation and theincrease in pDC numbers in PBMC cultured with HKL are consistent withantigen-specific tolerance induction (Colonna et al, Nat Immunol5:1219-1226, 2004).

Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the invention describedherein is susceptible to variations and modifications other than thosespecifically described. It is to be understood that the inventionincludes all such variations and modifications. The invention alsoincludes all of the steps, features, compositions and compounds referredto or indicated in this specification, individually or collectively, andany and all combinations of any two or more of said steps or features.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauer et al, Allergy 54(8):894-895, 1999

Bernard et al, Allergy 58(12):1285-1292, 2003

Beyer et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 109(4):7070-713, 2002

Bock, Pediatrics 79(5):683-688, 1987

Bock et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 107(1):191-193, 2001

Bock and Atkins, J Allergy Clin Immunol 83(5):900-904, 1989

Boyle et al, Am J Clin Nutr 83(6):1256-1264, 2006

Boyle et al, Syst Rev, Oct. 8, 2008 Issue 4, CD006135

Buchanan et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 119(1):199-205, 2007

Chen et al, Science 265(5176):1237-1240, 1994

Chung et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 109(1):150-154, 2002

Chung et al, J Leukoc Biol 77(6):906-913, 2005

Colonna et al, Nat Immunol 5:1219-1226, 2004

Daniel et al, Allergy 52(11):1237- 1242, 2007

Dunstan et al, J allergy Clink Immunol 112:1178-1184, 2003

Enrique et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 116(5):1073-1079, 2005

Frossard et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 114(2):377-382, 2004

Groux et al, Nature 389(6652):737-742, 1997

Grundy et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 110(5):784-789, 2002

Gupta et al, Thorax 62(1):91-96, 2007

Hamalaninen et al, Anal Biochem 299:63-70, 2001

Hourihane et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 100(5):596-600, 1997

Hourihane et al, Bmj 316(7140):1271-1275, 1998

Karlsson et al, J Exp Med 199 (12):1679-1688, 2004

Kemp et al, Arch Intern Med 155(16):1749-1754, 1995

Kerzl et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 119(2):507-508, 2007

Kieser and Friede, Statistics in Medicine 26:253-273, 2007

Leung et al, N Engl J Med 348(11):986-993, 2003

Matsuzaki and Chin, Immunology & Cell Biology, 78:67-73, 2000

Meglio et al, Allergy 59(9):980-987, 2004

Mehr et al, Paediatr Allergy Immunol 18(5):448-452, 2006

Mernard et al, J Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition 43:451-458, 2006

Mullins, Med J Aust 186(12):618-621, 2007

Nelson et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 99(6 Pt1):744-751, 1997

Norman, J Allergy Clin Immunol 113(6):1013-1023, 2004

Nucera et al, Dig Dis Sci 45(3):637-641, 2000

Osborne and Sinn, Probiotics in infants for prevention of allergicdisease and food hypersensitivity (Review), Cochrane Database Syst RevArt No. CD006474, 2007

Osborne and Sinn, Probiotics in infants for prevention of allergicdisease and food hypersensitivity (Review), Cochrane Database Syst RevArt No. CD006475, 2007

Patriarca et al, Aliment Pharmacol Ther 17(3):459-465, 2003

Perez-Machado et al, Eur J Immunol 33(8):2307-2315, 2003

Primeau et al, Clin Exp Allergy 30(8):1135-1143, 2000

Pumphrey, Curr Opin Allergy Cin Immunol 4(4):285-290, 2004

Rautava et al, Pediatr Res 60(2):221-224, 2006

Roberts and Lack, J Allergy Clin Immunol 115(6):1291-1296, 2005

Robertson et al, Med J Aust 180(6):273-276, 2004

Rolinck-Werninghaus et al, Allergy 60(10):1320-1322, 2005

Sampson, J Allergy Clin Immunol 107(5):891-896, 2001

Schabussora and Widermann, Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 8(6):557-564,2008

Schmidt-Weber and Blaser, Springer Semin Immunopathol 25(3-4):377-390,2004

Shida et al, Clin Exp Allergy 32:563-570, 2002

Sicherer et al, Pediatrics 102(1):199-205, 1998

Sicherer et al, Pediatrics 105(2):359-362, 2000

Sicherer et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 112(6):1203-1207, 2003

Skolnick et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 107(2):367-374, 2001

Strobel and Mowat, Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 6(3):207-213, 2006

Tureanu et al, J Clin Invest 111(7):1065-1072, 2003

Vander Leek et al, J Pediatr 137(6):749-755, 2000

Wensing et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 110(6):915-920, 2002

Young et al, Lancet 343(8906):1127-1130, 1994

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for treating allergen intolerance in asubject, said method comprising administering sequentially orsimultaneously to said subject a biotic and the allergen or an antigeniccomponent or fragment or analog thereof in an amount effective to inducetolerance to said allergen.
 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the bioticis a probiotic selected from the list consisting of a species ofLactobacillus, Bifidiobacterium, Escherichia, Sacchoromyces,Streptococcus, Bacillus and a genetically modified form thereof.
 3. Themethod of claim 2 wherein the probiotic is a species of Lactobacillusselected from the list consisting of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM,Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus casei Shirota, Lactobacillus caseiimmunitass, Lactobacillus johnsonii, Lactococcus lactis, Lactobacillusplantarum, Lactobacillus reuteri, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillussalivarius, Lactobacillus helvetirus and a genetically modified formthereof.
 4. The method of claim 3 wherein the probiotic is Lactobacillusrhaminosus.
 5. The method of claim 1 wherein the biotic is a prebioticselected from the list consisting of an oligosaccharide and a fibre. 6.The method of claim 1 wherein the allergen is a food allergen.
 7. Themethod of claim 6 wherein the food allergen is from a legume.
 8. Themethod of claim 7 wherein the allergen is from a peanut.
 9. The methodof claim 1 wherein the subject is a human.
 10. The method of claim 1wherein the subject is a non-human animal.
 11. The method of claim 10wherein the non-human animal is selected from the list consisting of acompanion animal, livestock animal and a captured wild animal.
 12. Themethod of claim 11 wherein the companion animal is a dog or cat.
 13. Themethod of claim 1 further comprising the administration sequentially orsimultaneously of both a probiotic and a prebiotic.
 14. A method forinducing tolerance to an allergy in a subject in need thereof in needthereof said method comprising administering sequentially orsimultaneously to said subject a biotic and an allergen associated withthe allergy or an antigenic component or fragment or analog thereof inan amount effective to induce tolerance to the allergy.
 15. The methodof claim 14 wherein the biotic is a probiotic selected from the listconsisting of a species of Lactobacillus, Bifidiobacterium, Escherichia,Sacchoromyces, Streptococcus, Bacillus and a genetically modified formthereof.
 16. The method of claim 15 wherein the probiotic is selectedfrom the list consisting of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM,Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus casei Shirota, Lactobacillus caseiimmunitass, Lactobacillus johnsonii, Lactococcus lactis, Lactobacillusplantarum, Lactobacillus reuteri, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillussalivarius, Lactobacillus helvetirus and a genetically modified formthereof.
 17. The method of claim 16 wherein the probiotic isLactobacillus rhaminosus.
 18. The method of claim 14 wherein the bioticis a probiotic selected from the list consisting of an oligosaccharideand a fibre.
 19. The method of claim 14 wherein the allergen is a foodallergen.
 20. The method of claim 19 wherein the food allergen is from alegume.
 21. The method of claim 20 wherein the allergen is from apeanut.
 22. The method of claim 14 wherein the subject is a human. 23.The method of claim 14 wherein the subject is a non-human animal. 24.The method of claim 23 wherein the non-human animal is selected from thelist consisting of a companion animal, livestock animal and a capturedwild animal.
 25. The method of claim 24 wherein the companion animal isa dog or cat.
 26. The method of claim 14 further comprising theadministration sequentially or simultaneously of both a probiotic and aprebiotic.
 27. A medical protocol to reduce sensitivity of a subject inneed thereof to an allergen, said protocol comprising instructions toadminister an effective amount of a biotic and instructions toadminister an effective amount of the allergen, sequentially orsimultaneously, the combination of which induces a tolerance to theallergen in a subject.
 28. A medicinal kit comprising in compartmentalform a first compartment or series of compartments comprising a bioticagent and a second compartment or series of compartments comprising anallergen or source of allergen or antigenic fragments, components oranalogs thereof with instructions for use.
 29. Use of a biotic incombination with an allergen in the manufacture of a medicament in thetreatment of an allergy induced by the allergen.
 30. Use of agenetically modified biotic of claim 2 in the manufacture of amedicament in the treatment of an allergy induced by an allergen.